Thread: An inconvenient question

A post I made on another thread regarding the ongoing violence was deleted (nice bias mods), so I will try to restructure the question, and put it in issues.

Ok, here is the question. In what way is the ongoing distruction of propery, buses, vehicles, gas tankers, building and general wide spread rampage justified as part of the political process persued by the reds?

How can random vandalism be supported as part of the reds political objectives?

There is always an element of anarchy in street riots

For the media it is flashy and makes for good photos and reportage. This is no more than social disobedience.

Strategically, there are tons of other more effective targets to close down a city. The airport foremost.

Or, if you're a real terrorist wannabe who wants to cause real fear - chemicals in the water supply (requiring one man, a big van, and sacks of aluminium sulphate) or suicide bombers. Terrorists seldom use fireworks to make loud scary bangs.

Thats why Forum Fodder who call the Reds 'terrorists' are just talking bollocks.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Ok, here is the question. In what way is the ongoing distruction of propery, buses, vehicles, gas tankers, building and general wide spread rampage justified as part of the political process persued by the reds?

it doesn't, it's called "vandalism", "hooliganism" and also "terrorism", that is to create a state of terror by taking hostage innocent civilians. The reds fit the textbook definition of all those.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

How can random vandalism be supported as part of the reds political objectives?

because they are desperate, they have no message and no cause, and obviously everyone can see through their game, which bring them frustration and that's when they start to make silly things like burning buildings, shooting in streets.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

Thats why Forum Fodder who call the Reds 'terrorists' are just talking bollocks.

of course not, and they are, petty ones and miserable, I agree, but they do fit the definition. Maybe you don't know the definition, go look it up.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

Or, if you're a real terrorist wannabe who wants to cause real fear - chemicals in the water supply (requiring one man, a big van, and sacks of aluminium sulphate) or suicide bombers. Terrorists seldom use fireworks to make loud scary bangs.

that's the smart terrorists, those with years of experience, the cream of the elite, they know what to do. Don't confuse petty terrorism and grand terrorism with the simple definition of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by nidhogg

How can random vandalism be supported as part of the reds political objectives?

because they are desperate, they have no message and no cause, and obviously everyone can see through their game, which bring them frustration and that's when they start to make silly things like burning buildings, shooting in streets.

I was pleased to see Bob make a valiant effort to defend the indefensible. Obvious point being is that if the reds had not taken the center of the city to ransom, nobody would be shooting at them.

But Bob is clearly of the "the ends justify the means" group. Anything, if it furthers ones objectives is acceptable.

Maybe the reds should start beheading soldiers they catch. That would learn 'em, and I am sure Bob would happily trot out some self serving garbage to justify it.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

You're also mistaken if you think that this is only in support of a political objective at this time, much of it is about just staying alive in a zone where the military are killing unarmed people.

well if we didn't know your background already, you would certainly fit the definition of a terrorist apologist.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism work, but only when the cause is valuable and true. This is not the case here.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Obvious point being is that if the reds had not taken the center of the city to ransom, nobody would be shooting at them.

obviously, not sure how anyone could miss that, unless they wrapped themselves into an alternate reality, which seems to be the case for some here

Originally Posted by nidhogg

But Bob is clearly of the "the ends justify the means" group. Anything, if it furthers ones objectives is acceptable.

you have to excuse DrB for that, he is a militant, and terrorism is part of a militant arsenal. It comes with the game. You can't be a credible militant without taking into consideration terrorism. That question must have been raised before for him, and he is probably comfortable with it. The problem I have is not so much about the militants accepting terrorism, but the cause itself. Is it worthwhile ? The actual cause dictates the validity of the terrorist actions. Here the cause of the reds doesn't warrant any kind of vandalism and terrorism, it's silly and pointless, above all when they had achieved a substantial portion of their demands. Very bad strategic move. Government wins.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Maybe the reds should start beheading soldiers they catch. That would learn 'em, and I am sure Bob would happily trot out some self serving garbage to justify it.

right, and that would be logical. I am sure some have thought about it. But where does it stop ? is the cause sufficient to warrant such extreme actions ? that's basically the questions that are being posed here and that everyone is seeing intrinsically.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

A post I made on another thread regarding the ongoing violence was deleted (nice bias mods), so I will try to restructure the question, and put it in issues.

Ok, here is the question. In what way is the ongoing distruction of propery, buses, vehicles, gas tankers, building and general wide spread rampage justified as part of the political process persued by the reds?

How can random vandalism be supported as part of the reds political objectives?

Although there is now burning of tires, until now, there was no general rampage as you describe. In comparison to the destruction and overt vandalism that accompanies a G-8 or G-20 event, the Bangkok event was rather low key. I was in Bangkok at the time of the April 10 killings and even then with the killings there was no retaliatory property damage.

Yes, there have been a few government vehicles torched. These were not non combatants. The vehicles were being used against the protestors. Aside from that, I am unaware of any other loss of vehicles, not even the porsche that ran down some motorbikes. I am aware of the story about a near empty oil tanker being parked near police lines, but when was it burnt? For that matter, when has any tanker been set ablaze?

I'm not a big fan of Thai culture but in just about any other country, the opposition would have done far far worse than mass arson. It is a testament to the Thai way of tolerance.

And it isn't outside the realm of possibility Central World ownership will benefit ( 13 billion insurance ) and thus may have- well pure speculation, but...

I agree soldiers were targeting unarmed protestors and journalists but were in turn being targeted by provocateurs.

However, nothing has been resolved.

It isn't over.

Originally Posted by Ripley

I'm not a big fan of Thai culture but in just about any other country, the opposition would have done far far worse than mass arson. It is a testament to the Thai way of tolerance.

Yeah. Fucking labour burning london when the tories got an allience with the lib dems. Bastards.

...oh, wait....

Is violence justified in pursuit of political aims? if so, when?
Is violence justified in response to violence? Even if it is from organs of the State?
Is violence justified, full stop?
For that matter can violence be waged against property, or is it by definition only against people?

It was a path of folly that led to the outbreak of arson and looting in Bangkok. But imo it was not justified- because the perpetrators did no favours to their cause, a cause which itself is eminently justifiable.

much "work" for the insurance!

Originally Posted by nidhogg

In what way is the ongoing distruction of propery, buses, vehicles, gas tankers, building and general wide spread rampage justified as part of the political process persued by the reds?

If I may be permitted to place some careful words into the mouths of the apologists for violence, the answer to the question is:

Violence in pursuit of the Reds' aims is justified but only up to the point where they arrive outside property I own.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Ripley

I'm not a big fan of Thai culture but in just about any other country, the opposition would have done far far worse than mass arson. It is a testament to the Thai way of tolerance.

Yeah. Fucking labour burning london when the tories got an allience with the lib dems. Bastards.

...oh, wait....

How many were shot during this alliance?
An orderly, perceived as legitimate, Parlimentary action is different than soldiers firing into a large crowd of the disenfranchised.

Aren't the British rather infamous for their football match riots?


The PAD closures of the airport, plenty of other cultures and it would have been smashed to bits.

Push an abused dog into a corner and you have to expect it to bite. This one merely snarled a bit.